A group of party activists has launched the Social Liberal Forum to help set out a bold Liberal Democrat vision to tackle inequality in Britain. The SLF is a new progressive voice in the party that will focus on how the mainstream social liberal traditions of the party should be applied to the huge challenges facing British society and the world.

The Conservative Party tries to disguise its indifference to poverty with empty words about a broken society. Labour rhetoric on equality has not been matched by actual achievements. The challenge for the Liberal Democrats, in the next election manifesto and beyond, is to develop the strong social justice commitments in areas like child and pensioner poverty for inclusion in the next election manifesto that will continue to give the Liberal Democrats a radical cutting edge in British politics. Liberal Democrats must continue to be the party that guarantees strong public services and tackles inequality in a radical way that neither the Tories nor Labour would ever contemplate.

SLF believes attention should be given to identifying who are the poorest in society and fashioning the breadth of policy instruments that will help them. We want to build on existing policies, such as the pupil premium, in order to decisively break the cycle of disadvantage. Priority should be identifying who are the poorest in society and what policy State action has to be refashioned in order to achieve the goals of equality and social justice. Liberal Democrats must also be ready to demonstrate how a more equal society is in the interests of all citizens not just the poor.

The SLF will hold a launch event at the party’s Harrogate conference in March, on a ‘A Liberal Democrat Vision for Social Justice’. This will examine how the party can best present an energizing vision of a more equal society.

An executive team of Richard Grayson (Chair), James Graham (Treasurer) and myself as Director will also be organising discussion events throughout the year, and holding debates through the www.socialliberal.net website. We want to provide opportunities for party members from all across the country to contribute their ideas about how to develop a modern policy programme that will reinvigorate the drive for social justice. As part of this, we will be hosting the Reinventing the State policy discussion evenings that James Graham announced last month.

Social Liberalism is the mainstream of the party and has been for decades. But we need to ensure that social liberals within the party continue to innovate on policy as the challenges we face change and develop. The Social Liberal Forum is intended to be an effective and open place for the mainstream of the party to develop new ideas to contribute to the formal party policy processes.

Dr Matthew Sowemimo is a former editor of The Reformer and was researcher for the Lib Dem Treasury team. He is a former Director of Government Affairs at the Equal Opportunities Commission and is currently Campaigns Manager at Christian Aid.

Why do you have to bring it down to personalities? And in what way is this any different from having the Green Lib Dems, ALTER or the Women Lib Dems?

There do seem to be a lot of anonymous commenters on this website who consider ANY internal discussion to be dangerous. It isn’t as if we are planning to do anything other than represent mainstream party opinion.

“Clearly this [the protection of liberty] entails guaranteeing the individual freedom from state interference. But is also entails public action, sometimes in the form of action by the state, to protect the individual against threats to guarantee freedom in the form of – among others – inequality, poverty, unemployment, ill-health, disability, lack of education and climate change.

Currently, however, the British state is poorly placed to achieve these ends. It is over-centralised and authoritarian, and for those reasons inefficient and unresponsive. The power exercised by the state therefore needs to be decentralized, participatory democracy encouraged and a greater emphasis placed on social justice and environmental sustainability.”

We can all sign up to most of that, surely? So long as individuals on both sides can resist the temptation to go all yah-boo, I think it has to be a good thing.

But is also entails public action, sometimes in the form of action by the state, to protect the individual against threats to guarantee freedom in the form of – among others – inequality, poverty, unemployment, ill-health, disability, lack of education and climate change.

Just a finickity point, but does that sentance parse correctly? To me it seems to say that the SLF (gonna rock ya) are guaranteeing our freedom through inequality, poverty, etc, not from it.

Shouldn’t it read “…threats to freedom…” or “…threats to guaranteed freedom…”? or “…to guarantee freedom in the form of – among others – equality, riches, employment, physical and mental well being, education and polar bears.”

On a more serious note, if you are putting a decent education 6th out of 7 things on your wish list, then you are going to have trouble tackling the first five.

I hope it does not become an attack group on so-called ‘orange bookers’ or ‘economic liberals’. I hold out hope, I don’t think James is the sort of person to do that (I don’t know the others).

I do urge them not to ignore the points of us libertarians who believe it or not can be concerned with inequality and social problems.
The difference is we see the state as the primary enabler of the things which cause these problems so seek to free individuals to individually and collectively, but always voluntarily, counter these problems.

Greater economnic equality can come either by making everyone poorer (the state socialist/social democrat method) or by empowering ordinary people by making them freer both economically and socially (the liberal method).

As a first step – something I’m sure all LibDems can get behind – lets end corporate welfare. After that you can deregulate without passing power to big business and so on.
(in the meantime – practice Community Politics – as its meant to be done – not this pavement politics method of creating a dependency on local government).

I think about people all the time. I think gearing society around the poorest actually makes everyone poorer in the long run. I mean, I don’t hold my beliefs because I’m actively looking for ways to increase suffering and misery you know?

Some work on raising the basic Income Tax Allowance to the minimum wage level.

£5.73 times 37 (hours a week) times 52 (weeks in a year) is £11024. God alone knows how that would square with claw backs on benefit,tax credit etc but the basic principle should be the lowest paid shouldn’t be paying tax and then having to recycled back via vast levaiathan state aparatus.

It would be expensive but a highly communicatable idea. step two would be to raise it to say 125% or 150% of minimum wage to add incentive for over time , progression etc

Number 2. Is the ” Nudge” approach liberal ? I can’t get my head round this. You are preserving freedom by allowing people to choose. No one is cohersed. However its a direct intrusion by the state into private behaviour by indentifying good actions, promoting them and by placing a burden on the individual to opt out.

If nudge can be seen as being liberal enough for us to use then a whole host of behaviours of poor demographics could be tackled. For impecible liberal reasons we would never use force to do this and thus todate things like poor diet, cooking, nutrition and crucially parenting have been off limits.

The saddest thing about this forum is how it seems to be setting out on the premise that if only you give poor people enough money, everything will be OK. This ignores the reasons why they are poor and suffer bad education and health outcomes in the first place. Often it is their own behaviour. The lesson from the failure of New Labour is not that more of the same is needed, but that a radical rethink is required. Why, for instance, do we have large numbers of single mothers on benefit who continue to have more children? Why are large numbers of children trapped in an anti-learning culture that means they cannot make use of educational resources that are actually abundantly available? Why do large numbers of fathers fail to take responsibility for their offspring? Why do people suffer poor health because they choose to smoke, don’t exercise and make poor dietary choices?
The last 11 years have shown not only that showering people with extra benefits actually deters them from making the right choices in life, but actually creates adverse incentives. Without leaving our fellow citizens in penury, how do we create incentives for people to take more responsibility for their lives? These are the questions any forum needs to look at.

The clue is in the title of the group James. It is not called Lib Dems Equality Forum or Lib Dems Focus on Poverty etc…but Social Liberal Forum…..which is encouraging factionalisation.

You fall back on that old trick of saying that If I am disappointed in this initiative I must be against political discussion….tactics that are very Bush like I may say.

We all know the subtext to this James.

Some were uncomfortable with the direction set out in MAke It Happen.

Attempts to amend the paper failed (quite spectacularly)

So instead the same people (taking others along for the ride) set up a group to help them campaign to change the direction (or modify it).

This is all quite legitimate, and in many ways positive.

But it isn’t always positive to set up a group in which the subtext is to challenge the direction set out by the Leader and endorsed by conference in what is likl;ey to be as near as dammit an election year.

There are types of factionalism. One is a healthy outcome of a successful political party growing and thus formalising its internal debate. So long as that debate is done in the spirit of openness, in the long run it can only be helpful.

We discussed long and hard about the sort of organisation we wanted. One of the first things I wanted to avoid is setting up some kind of benign dictatorship which claims to speak for people rather than merely facilitate the debate. Our first “action” has been to inaugurate policy discussion evenings. On the website we are shortly to launch an online equivalent of that.

This contrasts starkly with the other sort of factionalism which is secretive and done in the dark. The type where people set up front organisations and sock puppets and who favour quiet chats with MPs in dark corners rather than seek to influence party opinion. I can absolutely confirm that isn’t going to be our style.

I am glad then that you are helping run this show, because if it was left to others, the tendancy to polarise on dogmatic grounds could take hold.

As evidence, I post an excerpt from Richard Grayson’s speech on your new website, which it seems to me, defines exactly what this group is about:

“Within the Liberal Democrats, there are broadly two approaches. A minority view, that sees little reflection in party policy, but which has attracted much media attention, is the school of thought associated with the Orange Book, published in 2004. It is a view which suggests that we need to emphasise ‘choice’ in public services, tends to see the state as ‘nannying’ and believes that the way forward is to treat individuals as consumers and offer them choice through insurance schemes.

Less eye-catching to the media is the social liberal approach, which tends to influence party policy much more.”

This is about either or in the view of your Chief Executive.

I’m all for political debate, but I am not for division, particularly when it is based on an artificial ‘choice’ between two competing ideas when actually the marriage of social and economic liberalism (if we have to use those stupid phrases) has been what the party has been about for many years.

There really is a lot of nonsense being talked here, mainly by people with axes to grind and anonymity to cower behind.

This Forum is clearly set up to be out in the open, and lead in creating debate. This can only be a good thing, as there are enough Liberal Democrats who complain that we do not talk enough about politics. It is important to do this alongside all the campaigning.

As for ‘sigh’ (sic), it has been clear for some time that Liberals who believe that the free market has limits have been wanting to have a structure that contrasts against the well-funded ‘Centre for um’…. and provides a melting pot for ideas and debate. This has sort of been happening with Liberal Conspiracy and the like, but in a cross-party way. Your desire to curtail political debate must make you Gavin Grant and I claim my £5 🙂

As for ‘robertc’, er, no. Those of us who see the results of Labour’s centralist approach to doing things *to* our most deprived communities know what lessons need to be learnt. One task I hope this group will not shy away from is looking at those communities and towards finding genuinely Liberal ways to give them power and control (which yes does mean money). From a local government point of view, this is needed in best practice and support from our urban councillors in power; too often for them the only tools available are Labour control-freak centralisation. It is absolutely a job for social Liberals and fits absolutely centrally within that glorious Liberal tradition. Adherents to trickledown economics and the like just can’t work it out.

The problem is that the ‘orange bookers’ don’t really accept that individuals can be ‘socially free’ if they’re not ‘economically free’ while others seem to believe that people’s personal freedom is distinct from their economic freedom – and, in fact, cannot really be personally free if they economically free.

To me that’s doublethink, but it is the foundation of the ‘social liberal’ movement – liberalism delivered with illiberal means. It doesn’t work but it’s good they keep trying to work out the kinks I suppose.

I think it is a good thing if political parties have mechanisms for discussion about possible changes in direction.

Surely, if the electorate can change in its views and the world can develop, a party can as well.

I am someone who might vote LibDem in the future and would feel encouraged to do so if I felt the party was moving in the right direction, particular on financial management where politics has not delivered a stable banking sector.

What is the alternative to having these kinds of discussion? Members just accept the party line and hope that the leadership has a road-to-Damascus moment? Backroom dealings? Starting a new party?

I’m not an Orange Booker, but I recognise the valuable contribution the publication made to internal party debate.

Nor would I describe myself as a ‘social liberal’, though this new forum also potentially offers many benefits.

It certainly is a good thing whenever we can break down any cliques and encourage inclusive debate, so hopefully the profusion of ginger groups will also find it within themselves to come together as we continue the process of ongoing renewal and evolution of our party proposals.

As Gareth points out, it is all within our glorious liberal tradition and therefore each initiative of this sort should only help the development of our party – provided isolation doesn’t set in.

So let’s not start prejudicing any conclusions before the results are in.

I think the most important task for this group, and for the Liberal Democrats as a whole is to recognise that the old economic paradigm that dominated the world order up until 2007 has now collapsed. A lot of thinking is required to re-establish a new economic order that does not repeat the old mistakes. We cannot any longer assume that wherever market forces leads us will be definition benefit society, or that it evens makes society more free.
Consumers did not choose Northern Rock to fail, and did not have the knowlege in advance that it was going to fail. The idea that these people have just experienced “freedom” is absurd.
Vince Cable was quick to show how he is prepared to change his thinking by supporting the nationalisation of Northern Rock as an emergnecy measure. I wonder how many other economic experts within the Liberal Democrats would have done the same?
It will not be easy building a new economic paradigm. When you consider the level of debt in the public finances and the impending effects of global warming which according to Stern will have an even more radical effect on our daily life and economy.
It seems to me that this organisation is not swayed by outdated economic dogma and is probably better placed than most to chart a way ahead in the difficult circumstances we face today.

Peiority Number 3. Look at Universial Inheritance. I’m bitterly disappointed by the party’s policy on Baby Bonds. What evr their faults there are

– a secure long term savings mechanism

– a rare example of long term policy making where the benefits are delivered long after the memoirs are writen rather than the next days headlines.

– an incentive to save

– an attempt to address asset inequality rather in come inequality.

– an attempt to build a transformative welfare state rather than a dependency building one. nearly all welfare benefits are either income or condition contingent ( eg you are either very poor or have a child,disability). they are also doled ot in weekly or monthly instalments which keep you afloat but does little to chalenge the under lying issue.

What benefits never do is give you a single cheque big enough to actually change your life.

– a move towards a culture of long term investment rather than sort trm cosumption. I’m really p***ed off at some of the party sound bites slagging this plicy becuse its saved jam tommorrow where as we will spend it on jam today. This appeals to human instinct but isn’t necceserily what we need right now.

There has long been a need for an effective forum for sharing new ideas on (what I suppose we have to call) the left of the party. Although among the names associated with the group there are one or two unreconstructed collectivists, most do not fall into that category. I hope that this new group will thrive and become a strong force within the intellectual life of the party.

Casting about for a suitable motto for the SLF, I alighted on Google’s choice, which is “Don’t be evil”.

It would be evil to carry on supporting a party which had abandoned many of the key principles it has held for decades. It would be evil to carry on working for a party of cheerleaders for big spending cuts, the increasing marketisation of health and education, and the inevitable resulting increases in poverty and social inequality. Wouldn’t it now?

I applaud the formation of the SLF, and I trust its founders are well aware of the urgency of the task they face.

David, the last Lib Dem conference I went to I saw Vince speak at a fringe meeting. I can assure you that given the level of distrust of the private sector these days, Vince himself was sounding very sceptical of the marketisation of public services.
I really think the tide is starting to turn.

I am pleased to say that I agree entirely with Gareth Epps. We need more political debate in the party, not less. As long as we can maintain a healthy atmosphere to conduct that debate in, then the more voices, the better.

There has been a great deal of factionalism within our party recently from people who wish to push it in more of an “economic liberal” direction. And they have often done it in a way which I believe is dishonest – set up groups which they say are just to “encourage thinking” and which they say are just “liberal”, but only on looking closer do you find they have a strong agenda of pushing just one form of liberalism.

It reminds me a lot, as a Christian in the catholic tradition, of the fights I have had with groups like the “Christian Union”. I have no objection to them pushing their own form of Christianity, though it is not one I agree with. I have every objection to them not being honest in their name and way of promoting themselves about the fact that they are very much pushing one interpretation against others. I particularly dislike the way they use language which is intended to push the idea that their interpretation of Christianity is the only possible one, by constantly referring to themselves as just “Christian” or “non-denominational” when if they were honest they would use the honest term which describes them, “Protestant”.

Historically, the Liberal Party as it evolved in Britain and revived in the last quarter of the last century has been a social liberal party. In part this is because it was the remnant of a split where the more right-wing elements of liberalism joined with the Conservative Party. This is why the Conservative Party in Britain has survived as to quite a large extent the economic liberal party. In other parts of Europe the liberal parties have been more economically right-wing, but the equivalent of the Conservative Party is a “Christian Democrat” party which can be quite social democratic when it comes to economics.

It therefore seems to me that those trying to push the hard economic liberal line in our party are the interlopers who aren’t in its tradition. But they have a right to join it and try and push it in their direction. As I have said, if it goes too far, I would find the Liberal Democrats no longer a party I could happily support. This is how parties work, and those who are trying to push them in new directions have to accept it may mean the loss of the some of the footsoldiers who have been quietly keeping them going at ground level.

This “Social Liberal Forum” is open about its aims, and so far as I am aware its structure and funding. I like that honesty. We have already seen the factionalist accusations that it is about “defending producer interests” or “imposing state uniformity” which are rubbish. Though I do plead guilty to suggesting at times that the economic liberals are people who are just defending the producer interests of big business and the dull uniformity of big business products, and the wealth of those in charge of big business.

In factional debates it can be hard to distinguish between “You hold a view which I believe will lead to X” and “You hold to X”. Perhaps we should bear that in mind and try to stick to the former when disagreeing with party colleagues.

While politics is an awkward business to be using a Crystal ball in its at least worth looking at the following senario. In 16 months time we will have

– A Conservative government

– A shattered Labour Party

– The need for signifigant tax rises and expenditure cuts

– The social fall out from 3.5 million unemployed

– the clock further towards zero on climate change

This will be the best oppertunity for 30 years (since the Labour/SDP split) to rethink and reclaim the progressive ground in British politics for genuine community minded liberalism. A politics based on Horizontal inter relationships at community level rather than vertical ones between state and individual often involving dependency inducing benefit transfers.

Vacous platitudes about “hard working families” won’t do it any more. I’m bewildered why a few people seem so touchy about a body encouraging fresh thinking in the party.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic
and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here.
Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to
show this. You must be registered for our forum and can
then login on this public site
with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.